bug-binutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug ld/19531] New: ld fails to build proper executables in several case


From: address@hidden
Subject: [Bug ld/19531] New: ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:17:32 +0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531

            Bug ID: 19531
           Summary: ld fails to build proper executables in several cases
                    on x64_64-w64-mingw32
           Product: binutils
           Version: 2.26
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: ld
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: address@hidden
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 8929
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8929&action=edit
test case

I first discovered this by bootstrapping gcc and running the testsuite. I got
around 1200 new failures for the same gcc revision using binutils-2.26 compared
to using binutils-2.25.1, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-01/msg02756.html
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-01/msg02757.html

Most failures in the libstdc++ testsuite, 954 additional failures.

Besides the new failures, some tests which PASS and a some which FAIL allocate
huge memory spaces, over 40 GByte.

So I tried to analyze a bit. I picked a test case from the libstdc++ testsuite
22_locale/locale/cons/6.cc. Checking the preprocessed source, the assemply and
the object files for the support library and the test case itself there's no
difference. I disabled all debug information for an easier comparison. The
objects are identical for both versions.

I attach a test archive containing the support library and the object file, two
versions of the executable and the two dlls libstdc++-6.dll and
libgcc_s_seh-1.dll
to run the executables on a windows system.
The executable 6-2.15.1.exe is the one which is linked using ld-2.15.1, the
executable 6-2.16.exe is the one which is linked using ld-2.16.
The first one is fine the latter isn't.

I don't know how to analyze any further. Can someone have a look, please.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]